The Historical Brett and the Saint Kavanaugh of Faith

Standard methodologies for research into the historical person of Jesus, as odd it may
seem, are not only very helpful for determining the historicity of the various allegations against
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but can also be useful for determining whether what
we can know about him is actionable with respect to his nomination.
Many commentators have suggested that the allegations of misconduct are too old, or too
inconsistent, or are too incomplete to be reliable. Many of the same suggestions are made about
the data which are most germane to studies of the Historical Jesus. However, Historical Jesus
scholars have not thrown up their hands and decided that “no one can know for sure what
happened.” The difficulties with the Gospel accounts and the inconsistencies between them do
not preclude conclusions about the life of Jesus. It is true that we must view most words
attributed to Jesus in the Gospels with some degree of suspicion as to whether they were spoken
by him verbatim. Oral tradition can be shaped, in part, by those who transmit it. Particular
writers have particular agendas. Communities preserve what they have an incentive to preserve.
Even eyewitnesses can have trouble remembering an event, especially a traumatic event,
accurately. All these phenomena present problems for determining historicity, as Kavanaugh
apologists have been very ready to insist, but the problems are not insurmountable. There is
enough consistency across the portrayals of Jesus in both the canonical Gospels and other
sources of data we have about him that we can be confident of generalities and can determine if a
particular saying is the “kind of thing he would have said.” And that is for events that occurred
two thousand years ago. It is much easier to determine historical generalities about events that
occurred 35 years ago or less. There is a consistent picture of Kavanaugh that develops from the
data available to us whether or not the details of any particular allegation are totally historically
verifiable.
Multiple women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. At least one
allegation exists connecting Kavanaugh with post-college violence against a woman. On their
own, without further corroboration from other eyewitnesses, it would be difficult to determine
whether the individual allegations are each entirely accurate. In fact, we can be almost positive
that they are not entirely accurate. However, the “multiple attestation” represented by these
distinct isolated incidents of a similar nature buttresses the likelihood that there is at least some
truth to the allegations. This is a matter of probability. Even apart from the scientific fact that
false accusations of sexual abuse are rare, we must conclude just from multiple attestation that it
is likely that Kavanaugh has done something like what has been alleged.
However, the individual allegations of particular women, like Dr. Ford, who have been
harmed is not the only data available. We have access to other data that can be used to verify the
general picture. For instance, police records of involvement in a drunken brawl in college
connect violence with Kavanaugh’s drinking as a matter of public record. This is like having
references to Jesus in Josephus. It helps flesh out the picture from a differently biased, outside
perspective. And what if we had things Jesus himself had written? Kavanaugh’s own high school
yearbook entry is misogynistic and indicates regular heavy drinking. The general culture of his
schooling and background accord with this picture. Kavanaugh has since made various other
public statements admitting to heavy drinking. Thus, from his writings from that time we can
know for certain that Kavanaugh was a douche in high school and college, but can we know that
he didn’t do anything worse? Was he just all talk?
 Not insignificantly, we also have much later email correspondence from Kavanaugh
himself. Emails released as part of the nomination process indicate that he continued to be a
belligerent drunk into the 2000s, by his own admission. Not only so, but in the email
correspondence with his friends a misogynistic attitude prevails, including ongoing cavalier
discussion of using women sexually outside of marriage. He pressures friends to hide secrets
from girlfriends and spouses, indicating indirectly that he too is hiding misbehavior from his own
spouse. Taken in isolation these emails might only indicate that he is a scumbag who hangs out
with scumbags. However, when viewed in light of the allegations against him and the other
matters of record of similar ilk it must be concluded that a picture of the nominee emerges that is
decidedly worse. The written correspondence makes the likelihood of truth behind the
allegations of sexual assault, that is, the historicity their general nature if not their details, much
greater. The various data co-authenticate, satisfying a historical criterion of coherence.
Beyond these various data we have the confirmation hearing itself. In the hearing
Kavanaugh showed himself to be intemperate and belligerent today. These are not aspects of his
past that he has put behind him. They are clearly a part of who he is now. In this we have much
more to go on than in historical Jesus studies, which do not typically include interviews with
Jesus. If an embarrassing portrait is preserved by the canonical witness it is typically considered
reliable because the preservers of the tradition would have no incentive to invent embarrassing
details. And yet, here we have the man in question embarrassing himself in real time! These are
not speculative historical reconstructions. His belligerent, intemperate self-presentation is
consistent with that alleged by his victims and that on display in his own writings.
Finally, it must be noted that Kavanaugh is not being vetted for status as the only-
begotten Son of God. He is being vetted for a job. An important job, but one for which there are
many qualified candidates. Because of the claims in the Gospels about Jesus’ uniqueness, the
stakes for determining the historicity of Jesus traditions are quite high. Comparatively speaking,
the stakes for the determination of the historicity of particular details of the allegations against
Kavanaugh are much lower. It is not necessary to show that any individual allegation is exactly
historically accurate according to the testimony of the accuser. It is enough to show that there is a
high probability of Kavanaugh having done the kind of thing alleged of him. No more is needed
to move on to a qualified candidate. Even reasonable probability is enough to disqualify him for
service to the court. If criminal charges are ultimately brought, a higher standard will be required
for proof of guilt, but for the purposes of promotion a better candidate is easy to find. Without
doubt, the data available show that it is most probable that Brett Kavanaugh is an intemperate,
belligerent, entitled, misogynistic douchebag who has a history of drinking, violence, and
attempted sexual assault. If you prefer an uncritical hagiography of Saint Kavanaugh, I cannot
help you. I would prefer a justice who treats women with respect.

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski is a PhD Candidate in Biblical Studies